November 29, 2010

Ever since African-American voters in Washington D.C. kicked out school reformer Michelle Rhee, lowering property values in gentrifying sections of D.C., blogger and D.C. condo-owner Matthew Yglesias has been on the warpath to admit 165,000,000 immigrants to the U.S.. You might think that the subsequent increase in global carbon emissions alone would make that an expensive way to drive African Americans out of D.C. in order to improve the public schools and raise Yglesias's property value, but, you see, Yglesias has a triple bankshot plan to remake America into his beloved native Manhattan. He thinks 165 million immigrants couldn't help but come in handy in the Manhattanization of America so that everybody will take the subway to work.

But, has Yglesias ever asked immigrants where they want to live? Much of the evidence suggests: in the exurbs, in big houses, with big air conditioners, driving big SUVs. For example, here's a 2009 article by Alan Ehrenhalt in Governing entitled Immigrants and the Suburban Influx. It describes exurban Gwinnett County, about 30 miles outside of Atlanta. Famous as a white flight region just a couple of decades ago, Gwinnett is now majority minority, with lots of prosperous Indians and Koreans. Maybe in a generation or two, affluent Indians and Koreans will want to lead the downtown hipster life, but right now they want the traditional American Dream of a home with a yard and a big car (i.e., they want to emit a lot of carbon.)

Few Indians in Seattle, but lots live in Bellevue/Redmond, which is slightly east of the city.

Few Indians live in San Francisco, but lots live in the close by Alameda County and the Silicon Valley region.

I'm less familiar with Vancover BC, but I don't think there are neccessarily a huge number there. Many more live in the south suburbs of Vancouver (Surrey, Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Fraser Valley).

Few Indians in most of the NYC boroughs (except in Queens, which has a lot), but lots live in northern NJ and commute into the city.

Partly it's because they always have kids and sometimes invite over extended family to stay with them. Also, a big house and a nice yard is a status symbol. A cramped apartment or condo in Manhattan is not....

Most immigrants (Russians, Persians, Indians, Asians) are nouveau rich and, by elite American tastes, crude in their preferences. So they like big garish houses over something more small and stylish. It shows they made it....

In Vancouver, Chinese and Indian immigrants are known for their monster houses. In LA, Iranians have their Persian Palaces. In the northeast, you can find Bukharians and Syrians living large (in terms of house size).

Immigrants do not want to live in Manhattan, until maybe the 2nd generation when they get more assimilated. Of course, if we take 165000000 immigrants, that'll never happen....

Indians form 3 percent of the population of Gwinnet County. East & SE Asians form 7 percent of the population. Whites are under 50 percent of the population, down from ~90 percent about a couple decades ago.

Because "race replacement" is doused-in-gasoline-and-set-on-fire obvious. WGAS if there's a "plot" or not? It's happening, and we aren't allowed to oppose it, complain about it, or even point it out. Plot, schmot.

One thing I don't get about Yglesias arguments in this sphere is that he argues for the (somewhat shoddy) economic consensus that helping people move to his country allows natives to move up the income scale into higher paid work (as opposed to just sitting in the welfare pool forever), but at the same time argues that it is structurally racist for different ethnic minorities to be poorer and for redistributional economic policies to correct this. Taking these assumption and policies together, how would natives be better off? Even purely economically and discounting the fact that the natives would be labelled as racists and made to feel guilty simply for being relatively more prosperous (and the destructiveness to any attempt to make an effective politics when any ability to form a national policy consensus is subverted constantly to the question of the poor minorities).

What's the point of importing an underclass who are only good for unskilled labour to do the jobs you won't have to and are only capable of such if your wealth differential is simply going to be redistributed to them?

The first step to reduce immigration is for Anglo men to get over their inclination to rule over others.

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. How can you argue that White people should import people to work in low skilled labour whilst moving into managerial positions while also accepting, as this person does (on whatever loonie leftist basis), that for Whites to manage while other races work under them is structurally racist and driven by White supremacist desires for domination?

(Not to mention that this is false: Immigration of cheap labour doesn't get spun as immigrants who move in being employed by other immigrants, largely, for cheap labour, which is what happens at least on average, although this varies with places where the immigrants aren't very able to establish competitive business. It gets spun as being driven by White people's desire to make a cheap buck and manage rather than work, as if these were different between human groups, and when it's really at least as much about competitive pressures and anti-discriminatory legislation forcing this course of action).

Well, in this particular case I do think there might be some pretty strong circumstantial evidence for the "race replacement plot" that the WNs are always talking about...

This isn't interesting. Sailer never, ever talks about race-replacement per se. You can talk about IQ, immigration, Israel, pretty much anything you want. But mentioning race-replacement is too "creepy," I guess.

And yet it's happening, and it's not just immigration that causes it; it's also miscegenation.

Why is it so hard to talk about that?

One possible reason is the assurance one might have that anybody who brings it up must simply be filled to overflowing with racial hatred, so it's essential to sweep it under the rug lest anyone be offended.

Obviously hardcore WNs are routinely filled to overflowing with racial hatred. But just because WNs don't like something doesn't automatically mean it's a good thing.

RKU, can people at least question whether the process of racial extinction via intermixture and genetic submergence is a good thing? Because if it's decided that the benefits from the process which leads to racial extinction aren't all that great (or even existent, as some wags might put it) then it might make sense to change course and consider alternative social arrangements.

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. How can you argue that White people should import people to work in low skilled labour whilst moving into managerial positions while also accepting, as this person does (on whatever loonie leftist basis), that for Whites to manage while other races work under them is structurally racist and driven by White supremacist desires for domination?

It's actually really easy. You just start with the assumption that no policy need do anything good for whites and that whites are just there to serve the needs of others, rather than being people in their own right. You can justify pretty much anything with a running start like that. And why not? It's not as if the bulk of whites can even bring themselves to realize it, let alone complain. Win-win!

"The demographic most responsible for ongoing, massive immigration is middle aged, Caucasian, Christian capitalists who can't get enough of the cheap, hard working labor."

In Utah, Mormon politicians and businessmen are notorious for pushing for open borders. The Mormon Church does so, as well, if surreptitiously.

"You just start with the assumption that no policy need do anything good for whites and that whites are just there to serve the needs of others, rather than being people in their own right."

Well said.

Yesterday I saw a black lady crossing the street with two very black children. A white lady was helping her. A friend? A "life partner"? A volunteer? Whatever she was, when's the last time you saw a minority caring for white children who wasn't getting paid to do so?

I saw one, once - a black man with a white boy. Then I realized the boy was an albino.

For some people, pro-immigrationism is to reduce white power. For others, it's to create a greater buffer between themselves and blacks.

Ha, ha! Well, here's an interesting thought-experiment to consider. My guess is that Yglesias and all his DC friends would be perfectly happy to open the floodgates to a vast horde of white European immigrants---Swedes, Sicilians, Germans, Greeks, Irish, Serbs, whichever selection the various WN factions can agree upon. Or if the Islamicists are willing to put their political muscle behind the project, they can have their pick of Albanians, Pathans, Kurds, Algerians---whomever can be obtained in bulk-lot quantities.

The only real requirement is that all these immigrants have to reasonably poor and slightly desperate. People should consider how the country of "Dane-Mark" got its name...

"What's the point of importing an underclass who are only good for unskilled labour to do the jobs you won't have to and are only capable of such if your wealth differential is simply going to be redistributed to them?"

No point, of course. It's a point liberals hope other people won't catch on to.

For businessmen the point is that the redistribution to minorities will occur via the tax code while the benefits of cheaper labor will flow only to them.

This is why any person sincerely opposed to mass immigration and illegal immigration will oppose the extension of Bush's tax cuts for the rich. The highest cap gains rate is currently 15%. For people filing single, the 15% income tax bracket is for people earning up to $34,000. Above $34,000 and you pay 25%. Yes, a guy making %$60,000 a year has a higher tax rate than a billionaire.

These are the same people who have been vehemently opposed to enforcing our immigration laws, and conservatives want to give them a tax cut.

30 years into the Reagan Revolution we have dramatically larger government, a trillion dollar deficit, 12 million illegal immigrants, 40 million immigrants total, no school choice, abortion is completely legal at any time during a pregnancy, affirmative action is more widespread than ever, and more people than ever are receiving government handouts like TANF, food stamps, etc.

But the rich have taxes that are lower than ever.

The business wing of the GOP wants only for the enrichment of itself, and it never, ever supports us on any of those other issues - and frequently opposes us. It is time that we hold off on cutting their taxes until we get something in return. I'll start with lower immigration and the elimination of affirmative action.

Give them their tax cuts first and you lose any bargaining power you have.

"You just start with the assumption that no policy need do anything good for whites and that whites are just there to serve the needs of others, rather than being people in their own right. You can justify pretty much anything with a running start like that. "

This, I believe, is a sterling candidate for all time iSteve commenters' best quote.

Having read all the comments over on Ygelsias's "165 million more immigrants" post, I can say that it's stunning and refreshing to see a left-wing liberal on a left-wing blog getting his ass handed to him on immigration.

Texas is majority-minority, but whites continue to migrate there and maintain strongly conservative government. Atlanta's metro is majority-minority, but whites are flocking there too and keep the politics to the right.

Sometimes I'm surprised by how many white conservative don't mind living alongside lots of NAMs in the south or southeast. I'm also surprised by how white southerners can support very conservative policies, without incurring much racial tension or violence among the NAMs. Why so docile down in the ATL?

In Texas, conservative white anglos completely changed up the school textbooks to reflect a more conservative/anglo bent. I don't understand how they can do that in a state where half the population and 2/3 of students are minorities, but NAMs don't seem particularly angry and aren't rebelling. If such a thing had happened in predominately white Seattle (it couldn't because whites are more cowed/liberal), NAMs wouldn't have taken it.

So I'm not convinced that having a large percentage of whites is neccessarily going to help the conservative cause.

The demographic most responsible for ongoing, massive immigration is middle aged, Caucasian, Christian capitalists who can't get enough of the cheap, hard working labor.

Just so.

The decades of Jewish agitation for non-White immigration (doumented by Kevin MacDonald) are dismissed with a wave of the hand. Likewise the fact that White businessmen played no role whatsoever in opening the floodgates.

White businessmen use immigrant labor because it has become a race to the bottom. Once the flow of immigrants starts, businesses have to do what their competitors are doing.

Moreover, where do you get the idea that the greed that you posit among White businessmen is not the result of influence from another ethnic group? As MacDonald in The Culture of Critique and other analysts point out, the central thrust of Jewish intellectual activity going back to the Enlightenment has been to break down the ties among Whites -- to atomize them, to separate them from another in the present and to separate them from their ancestors and descendants. The hyperindividualism fostered by these movements is a synonym the for amorality evident among those (like immigrant-importing White businessmen) who would benefit personally at the expense of the group.

Immigration policy isn't driven by economics or business, and no country in the West that I know of really ties its immigration policy to it economy. Ireland is in an economic meltdown which logically calls for a moratorium on immigration. Don't hold your breath. Despite what the FUD merchants are pushing, Republicans don't support immigration because of cheap labor, they support it for the same reason they slobber over Martin Luther King or apologies for slavery - Political Correctness and just plain fear. Immigration policy is a policy of the Left, it's a racial policy driven by a desire to end "racism" which in practice means a desire to end the existence of white people. That's the official definition of "ending racism."

a. We're importing a replacement people for the middle class, and in particular for middle-class whites.

b. As people intermarry and interbreed and self-identify based on fractional "exotic" ancestry (aka, the 7/8 European girl who proudly declares herself Native American for that other 1/8, undetectable to anyone without a DNA sample), the set of clear, self-identified whites gets smaller.

In a first-world country, you can only import a replacement people because the original people aren't reproducing. That's not clearly anyone's fault but the people who wait till age 40 to start wondering if they want kids. It's happening everywhere that people are rich and educated, probably because kids are an expensive pain in the ass a lot of the time. (And I speak with some experience, much though I love my kids.) If that weren't happening, we might be getting immigration-driven population growth, but we wouldn't be importing a replacement people.

As an HBD-realist who's not remotely interested in ethnic nationalism (I don't really have the "team spirit" file on my hard drive, to be honest), I don't really find it all that different whether we're importing Albanians to replace middle-class Americans who won't reproduce, or importing (say) Chinese. In either case, the original people mostly just goes away, and their genetic and cultural uniqueness mostly goes with them.

By contrast, the process of racial mixing is very different, and doesn't seem particularly uncomfortable to me. The genes and culture remain, more-or-less in the mix. Indeed, what we call white now is the result of a hell of a lot of mixing. (See the "Native American" girl above, or what's been happening with Jews in America for the last century, or Italians, or Mexicans, or whatever.)

I think historically, the American dream was to move here and live the way you always wished you could back in the old country. And the positive outcome was that your grandkids faded into the population, uninterested in being Polish or Irish or Dutch or Armenians or whatever, because they were too busy being Americans, chasing girls and trying to find jobs and make good lives for themselves.

In my experience, as a foreigner, Americans are not hedonistic egoists and they aren't utilitarians (no matter how much the hedonistic egoists and utilitarians of the Liberal tradition want them to be [and by which I mean the bad tradition of Mill's nonsense that people who identify themselves as Liberal follow, not the good tradition that lead to the American Revolution]).

Other things matter to them, not just prosperity and happiness or even autonomy. This is a good thing.

"Easiest way to defeat someone is to convince him it's a 'fait accompli.' He defeats himself."

Which is exactly what leftists do every time they mention that whites will be a minority of the US population by 2050.

They always treat that as a fait accompli yet have spent decades of their time and billions of our money trying to close the racial gap between blacks and whites in academic achievement. The former, which could easily be changed were the political will there to do so, is treated as written in stone. The latter, which even the left characterizes as "persistent" and "stubborn", is treated as a fixable problem that lacks only the appropriate remedy.

And by refusing to acknowledge the facts when framing the debate, the left is defeating us on both fronts.

"Moreover, where do you get the idea that the greed that you posit among White businessmen is not the result of influence from another ethnic group?"

That's pathetic. You can continue to blame the Jews for third world immigration all you want and you can continue to give white Gentiles a pass for their perfidy but you won't accomplish anything. By building up Jews to be some sort of all-powerful ethnic bloc that can easily influence elite whites who are often times richer and smarter than them, you are degrading yourself and your people. Are elite white Gentiles really that powerless?

...that can easily influence elite whites who are often times richer and smarter than them, you are degrading yourself and your people. Are elite white Gentiles really that powerless?

Not powerless. Susceptible.

And "degrading"? It's "degrading" to acknowledge that's one'e own people is not omnipotent? You ridicule the strawman of omnipotent Jewry, and then you ridicule me for *not* asserting White omnipotence?

I didn't say you needed to conceal anything. But your approach does seem one dimensional.

"Strawman."

Fine. I overstated my case, then again so did you when you dismissed that elite white Gentiles had any personal responsibility in this clusterf-ck of an immigration policy. They didn't start it? Ok. Why didn't they oppose it in the first place? Why aren't they doing anything to stop it right now? Do you give the same pass to Gentile whites who promote race-mixing or are they "adapting" like the rich white businessmen?

"Not powerless. Susceptible."

They may as well be powerless if they can easily fall for propaganda that supposedly doesn't benefit them. Jewish influence can only go so far.

"And "degrading"? It's "degrading" to acknowledge that's one'e own people is not omnipotent? You ridicule the strawman of omnipotent Jewry, and then you ridicule me for *not* asserting White omnipotence?"

I overstated my case, but that does seem to be the flavor I get from Majority Rights. For once I'd like to see WNs admit that whites like the Boston Brahmins are pretty f-cking guilty in all of this considering they were running the show long before the new money Jews started whispering race replacement in their ears. But that will never happen obviously, because much like the Jews you despise, your knee-jerk tribalism clouds your thinking.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.